United States of America v. Thompson Densmore St. Pierre

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMPSON DENSMORE ST. PIERRE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30187
D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00003-SEH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Thompson Densmore St. Pierre appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges the 21-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction
for theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 661 and 1153(a). We have jurisdiction
FILED
APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30187 2
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
St. Pierre contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
explain adequately the basis for the sentence and for its decision to run the
sentence consecutively to his other federal sentences. We review for plain error,
see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and
find none. The record reflects that the court heard St. Pierre’s arguments and
adequately explained the sentence in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors. The court was not required to justify specifically its choice to run the
sentence consecutively. See United States v. Fifield, 432 F.3d 1056, 1063-66 (9th
Cir. 2005).
St. Pierre also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing St. Pierre’s sentence. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the
totality of the circumstances, including the need for deterrence and to protect the
public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --